Shockley v. Cascade County
2016 MT 34
Mont.2016Background
- Shockley sought disclosure under Article II, §9 of a settlement agreement involving Cascade County, detention officer Jason Carroll, and the Teamsters Local 2 union.
- Cascade County conceded it had no objection to disclosure; Carroll was defaulted; the Union alone resisted disclosure relying on the agreement’s confidentiality clause.
- The District Court ordered disclosure after balancing public right to know against privacy interests; Shockley prevailed.
- Shockley moved under § 2-3-221, MCA, for costs and attorney fees but limited his fee request to work performed after Carroll’s default and the County’s concession—seeking fees only against the Union.
- The District Court awarded costs but denied attorney fees, citing the case’s unique procedural developments; Shockley appealed the denial.
- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding fees inappropriate because the Union is a private entity not subject to Article II, §9 (and thus fees under § 2-3-221 cannot be imposed on it).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Court abused its discretion by denying attorney fees under § 2-3-221, MCA | Shockley: Prevailing party entitled to reasonable fees; defense’s good faith or reasonableness is not a per se bar | Union: (implicitly) its private-party status and confidentiality interest justified denial; District Court emphasized procedural uniqueness | Court: No abuse of discretion — fees not recoverable against a private, non-public body (the Union), so denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Shockley v. Cascade County, 376 Mont. 493 (2014) (prior opinion recognizing Shockley’s standing under Article II, §9)
- Pengra v. State, 302 Mont. 276 (2000) (affirming denial of fees where privacy objection asserted by private party)
- Yellowstone Cnty. v. Billings Gazette, 333 Mont. 390 (2006) (fees under § 2-3-221 are discretionary; denial without rationale is an abuse of discretion)
- Becky v. Butte-Silver Bow Sch. Dist. No. 1, 274 Mont. 131 (1995) (three-step right-to-know review: applicability, documents’ public-body status, and privacy balancing)
- Bozeman Daily Chronicle v. City of Bozeman Police Dep’t, 260 Mont. 218 (1993) (discussing limits on fee awards in right-to-know cases)
- The Associated Press v. Board of Pub. Educ., 246 Mont. 386 (1991) (fee-related authority in right-to-know context)